JDK-8293410: Remove GenerateRangeChecks flag

[dafedafe]

The JVM crashes with an assertion failure when array range checks are disabled using -XX:-GenerateRangeChecks and we're trying to access the array with an index outside its boundaries.

Such a behaviour is actually expected. What is unclear is the reason for having a GenerateRangeChecks flag (basically to force not to perform range checks). An inspection of the change that introduced the flag didn't clarify its original use-case.

So, removing the GenerateRangeChecks flag.

---

Progress

• Change must be properly reviewed (1 review required, with at least 1 Reviewer)
• Change must not contain extraneous whitespace
• Commit message must refer to an issue

Issue

• JDK-8293410: Remove GenerateRangeChecks flag

Reviewers

• Tobias Hartmann (@TobiHartmann - Reviewer)
• Christian Hagedorn (@chhagedorn - Reviewer)
• Vladimir Kozlov (@vnkozlov - Reviewer)

Reviewing

Using git

Checkout this PR locally:
$ git fetch https://git.openjdk.org/jdk pull/11964/head:pull/11964
$ git checkout pull/11964

Update a local copy of the PR:
$ git checkout pull/11964
$ git pull https://git.openjdk.org/jdk pull/11964/head

Using Skara CLI tools

Checkout this PR locally:
$ git pr checkout 11964

View PR using the GUI difftool:
$ git pr show -t 11964

Using diff file

Download this PR as a diff file:
https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/11964.diff

[bridgekeeper]

👋 Welcome back dafedafe! A progress list of the required criteria for merging this PR into master will be added to the body of your pull request. There are additional pull request commands available for use with this pull request.

[openjdk]

@dafedafe The following label will be automatically applied to this pull request:

• hotspot

When this pull request is ready to be reviewed, an "RFR" email will be sent to the corresponding mailing list. If you would like to change these labels, use the /label pull request command.

[TobiHartmann]

Looks good to me!

[openjdk]

@dafedafe This change now passes all automated pre-integration checks.

ℹ️ This project also has non-automated pre-integration requirements. Please see the file CONTRIBUTING.md for details.

After integration, the commit message for the final commit will be:

8293410: Remove GenerateRangeChecks flag

Reviewed-by: thartmann, chagedorn, kvn

You can use pull request commands such as /summary, /contributor and /issue to adjust it as needed.

At the time when this comment was updated there had been 38 new commits pushed to the master branch:

• 50e7df9: 8300024: Replace use of JNI_COMMIT mode with mode 0
• fe7fca0: 8300032: DwarfParser resource leak
• 12edd6f: 8300052: PdhDll::PdhCollectQueryData and PdhLookupPerfNameByIndex will never be NULL
• 7bcd5f4: 8297914: Remove java_lang_Class::process_archived_mirror()
• 4be94e4: Merge
• 87865e0: 8299502: Usage of constructors of primitive wrapper classes should be avoided in javax.xml API docs
• dc5cc61: 8299499: Usage of constructors of primitive wrapper classes should be avoided in java.net API docs
• 98eae6d: 8299500: Usage of constructors of primitive wrapper classes should be avoided in java.text API docs
• 628266a: 8299501: Usage of constructors of primitive wrapper classes should be avoided in java.util API docs
• ab7f43f: 8299498: Usage of constructors of primitive wrapper classes should be avoided in java.lang API docs
• ... and 28 more: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/compare/0ee8cac7c7b317c780e4a08c2dd6daf36301a3e5...master

As there are no conflicts, your changes will automatically be rebased on top of these commits when integrating. If you prefer to avoid this automatic rebasing, please check the documentation for the /integrate command for further details.

As you do not have Committer status in this project an existing Committer must agree to sponsor your change. Possible candidates are the reviewers of this PR (@TobiHartmann, @chhagedorn, @vnkozlov) but any other Committer may sponsor as well.

➡️ To flag this PR as ready for integration with the above commit message, type /integrate in a new comment. (Afterwards, your sponsor types /sponsor in a new comment to perform the integration).

[mlbridge]

Webrevs

• 00: Full (800ec0b4)

[chhagedorn]

Looks good!

[vnkozlov]

This flag (and some others) was added for debugging purpose when range check code was introduced.

Change looks good.

[dafedafe]

@TobiHartmann @chhagedorn thanks for your reviews and @vnkozlov for your explanation as well!

[dafedafe]

/integrate

[openjdk]

@dafedafe
Your change (at version 800ec0b) is now ready to be sponsored by a Committer.

[TobiHartmann]

/sponsor

[openjdk]

Going to push as commit 83f2c9a.
Since your change was applied there have been 38 commits pushed to the master branch:

• 50e7df9: 8300024: Replace use of JNI_COMMIT mode with mode 0
• fe7fca0: 8300032: DwarfParser resource leak
• 12edd6f: 8300052: PdhDll::PdhCollectQueryData and PdhLookupPerfNameByIndex will never be NULL
• 7bcd5f4: 8297914: Remove java_lang_Class::process_archived_mirror()
• 4be94e4: Merge
• 87865e0: 8299502: Usage of constructors of primitive wrapper classes should be avoided in javax.xml API docs
• dc5cc61: 8299499: Usage of constructors of primitive wrapper classes should be avoided in java.net API docs
• 98eae6d: 8299500: Usage of constructors of primitive wrapper classes should be avoided in java.text API docs
• 628266a: 8299501: Usage of constructors of primitive wrapper classes should be avoided in java.util API docs
• ab7f43f: 8299498: Usage of constructors of primitive wrapper classes should be avoided in java.lang API docs
• ... and 28 more: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/compare/0ee8cac7c7b317c780e4a08c2dd6daf36301a3e5...master

Your commit was automatically rebased without conflicts.

[openjdk]

@TobiHartmann @dafedafe Pushed as commit 83f2c9a.

💡 You may see a message that your pull request was closed with unmerged commits. This can be safely ignored.